I'm well aware of that, but in the posy I was replying to he said it looked like a 757 to him.

OK, gotcha'. We see planes all the time flying from airports, but I have never said "oh, that's a such-and-such". Usually I just look up and
wonder where they are flying to. Typically people don't know one plane from another while it's flying.

Well except that they don't hit 500mph and suddenly fall apart either. It takes time for the stress to build up to the point it causes a structural
failure.

Oh that person just made me laugh out loud and your response was too funny. We all know that airplanes cross the Atlantic and Pacific oceans at high
speeds at very high altitudes. Their construction design is made for that purpose. They are constructed of sheets of aluminum that are riveted
together because the body needs a little wiggle space for expansion of air. They don't fall apart in turbulence either.

When I just took a trip last month, I flew from Chicago to Toronto, the plane I was waiting for was delayed in Toronto because one of the engines had
a bird strike. They had to fly back to the airport to check it out. So bird strikes are way more common, but I have never heard of a plane just
breaking apart while in flight. Planes are checked on a regular maintenance schedule for stress and mechanical defects. And statistically, flying is
still more safer than driving.

If anything, it's the integrity of the rivets we should be most concerned about.

It's happened a few times, usually after something else started it. At least one DC-10 crashed after the aft cargo door opened in flight and the
floor collapsed, cutting the control cables. Then there was Aloha 243, where the roof ripped off.

Boeing computer modeled (then later in the Sim) a 767 in a dive to below 10,000 feet (I don't remember the exact parameters) at near mach 1 without
it coming apart. Aircraft a number of times have exceeded their flight parameters. They tend to put a bit of cushion into them.

You said "757" for whatever reason.
The second WTC tower hit is what I am concerned with, which flew over Battery Park, with a video camera set up on the south end of the park, which I
watched the feed of.
The flight allegedly that was involved in that incident was United Airlines Flight 175.

We know that 4 planes left airports with
manifests that included passengers and crews.

There was no actual flight 175 scheduled.
The plane identified as the one used in flight 175 was seen the next day at an airport, based on the tail number.

The security cameras show
people boarding those planes.

There is no authentic video available of passengers boarding.

For your theory to work, something happened
to every passenger and crew member on each plane.

No one showed up at the airport in Los Angeles (the claimed destination) to meet any
passengers flying in on that supposed flight.
Most of the supposed passengers on the supposed flight 175 were employees of defence manufacturing contractors and were probably fictitious people
invented as covers by intelligence agencies.

Not in the least. A 757 fuselage is so narrow it could got through some engine cowlings.

I can't post pics right now but that plane is NOT a 757. I say that with 100% certainty. For one thing the nose is completely different. The 767 has
a fat blunt nose as seen in your picture. The 757 has a skinny nose that looks like a beak, or a hooked nose.

It's happened a few times, usually after something else started it. At least one DC-10 crashed after the aft cargo door opened in flight and the
floor collapsed, cutting the control cables. Then there was Aloha 243, where the roof ripped off.

Scary.

But the plane with D.B. Cooper didn't fall apart when its cargo door was opened. BTW, how did the guy know there would be parachutes in that plane?
Did he maybe pack it with him?

That wasn't a cargo door, it was boarding stairs. The 727 and some models of the DC-9 family have boarding stairs under the tail, and under the
forward door on the left side.

He told them to give him the chute with the money. He was very specific about the type he wanted.

Well, he was almost a genius. He did get away, but not with all the money.

I don't know anything about planes, I just know they fly. With your understanding of planes, and the constant theories of remote control, wouldn't a
767 HAVE to be outfitted with the equipment in the plane and they would have to remove the passenger seats and cockpit seats?

I can't buy that one, even though I don't much about planes. I just can't see a full size commercial airliner that is remote controlled from Boston
to NYC. For it to be outfitted, wouldn't you have to exchange every hose and lever in the aircraft? It would seem to me that a remote control
commercial jet would have to be built fin a factory. I just can't see someone doing this in a hangar somewhere, because they aren't designed for
that.

It could be done, but there would be a few external changes made that we should have seen that I don't remember. The aircraft would be out of service
for awhile though and these weren't. If they were someone would have come forward by now about it.

It could be done, but there would be a few external changes made that we should have seen that I don't remember. The aircraft would be out of service
for awhile though and these weren't. If they were someone would have come forward by now about it.

CNN witness Sean Murtaugh first says he thinks it was a 737. That means he doesn't know what type of aircraft is what. But conspiracy theorists jump
on this thinking another plane is what did it.

Here is one of just 25 seconds of the second plane

The announcer here doesn't even realize a plane has hit and says "another explosion". This has to indicate that the media was not fed a single news
feed, if at first they don't know what was going on.

So we can kind of guess how fast this plane was moving. From the moment it first comes into view which is about 25 seconds into the video until 41
when you see the explosion impact. That is about 16 seconds that you see the plane and then when it hits. It must have been going pretty fast because
when you see it, the plane is well out of range, flying over the Hudson Bay. But you can clearly see the descent into the building.

But 16 seconds to get over the Hudson Bay is amazing. A flying gas tank missile was what it was at that moment.

There was all kinds of confusion that day. They initially said it was a small plane that was lost, then a 737.

One of the most famous quotes that was used for years was the person that said it had to be military, because it was grey with no windows. Then it
turned out that they were like a mile and a half or two miles away when they saw it.

There was all kinds of confusion that day. They initially said it was a small plane that was lost, then a 737.

One of the most famous quotes that was used for years was the person that said it had to be military, because it was grey with no windows. Then it
turned out that they were like a mile and a half or two miles away when they saw it.

When I was young growing up in Ohio we used to have Air Force jets fly over us all the time because we lived in their area of operations from Wright
Patterson. Sometimes they flew right over the tree tops and you could almost see the pilot if you were standing in the right place. But I didn't
live in an urban area, it was all rural farms and fields.

But still, if you asked me what kind of jets, I would not know. I have to say, looking back on it, as a child it was pretty impressive how those jets
sounded and the speed was incredible. I mean you would see the jet, then seconds later hear the engines.

At nighttime we watched the lights from airplanes come over us as they took of from Dayton International. We just happened to be in their flight
pattern. I wish I had a camera back then but your post brought back memories of my Ohio childhood.

Sometimes as the Air Force jets flew over us, as children we would wave at them, hoping the pilots would see us. A few times they dipped their wings
as if they were saying hello back to us. I would like to think they were.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.